ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2017
Predatory Publishing Is a Threat to Non-Mainstream Science.
Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retracted Publications Related to Statistics: A Scopus-Based Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- How To Cope With Predatory Journals.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- Barriers and Constraints in Scientific Manuscript Preparation Among Nephrologists: Insights From India.International journal of nephrology · 2025Article
- An open automation system for predatory journal detection.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Threats to scholarly research integrity arising from paper mills: a rapid scoping review.Clinical rheumatology · 2022Article
- Top Central Asian Educational Institutions on Publons: Analysis of Researchers and Reviewers.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Article processing charge may be a barrier to publishing.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021Article
- Predatory Open Access Journals are Indexed in Reputable Databases: a Revisiting Issue or an Unsolved Problem.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2020Review
- Open Access Journals in the Middle East and Iran.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Article
- Critical Thinking and Scientific Writing Skills of Non-Anglophone Medical Students: a Model of Training Course.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Review
- Negative Effects of "Predatory" Journals on Global Health Research.Annals of global health · 2018Review
- Better understanding of publishing practices and indexing of target journals is essential.Rheumatology international · 2018Article
- Plagiarism in the Context of Education and Evolving Detection Strategies.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Review
- Not only Iranian rise in science marred by fraud: Misconduct is a global problem.EXCLI journal · 2017Article
- Predatory journals- Can we stem the rot?Journal of postgraduate medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article highlights the issue of wasteful publishing practices that primarily affect non-mainstream science countries and rapidly growing academic disciplines. Numerous start-up open access publishers with soft or nonexistent quality checks and huge commercial interests have created a global crisis in the publishing market. Their publishing practices have been thoroughly examined, leading to the blacklisting of many journals by Jeffrey Beall. However, it appears that some subscription journals are also falling short of adhering to the international recommendations of global editorial associations. Unethical editing agencies that promote their services in non-mainstream science countries create more problems for inexperienced authors. It is suggested to regularly monitor the quality of already indexed journals and upgrade criteria of covering new sources by the Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science), Scopus, and specialist bibliographic databases. Regional awareness campaigns to inform stakeholders of science communication about the importance of ethical writing, transparency of editing services, and permanent archiving can be also helpful for eradicating unethical publishing practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.